Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:09 am
by Rook Zimbabwe
Though I'll never forgive ATI for writing Catalyst Control Center in .NET...
I never will either!
But still... the ATi issues may have been caused by the graphics bridge on the system board. I just make sure that they both match... ATi using an ATi card and nVidia using etc.
I haven't had issues with either.
In some of the games I wrote in 3D unless the texture was a perfect square and not more than 512X512 (this was about 3 years ago) The .X objects I created would show as just white untextured models on most nVidia.
I couldn't market the games if that happened so WaHoo and HEXthello languished.
Thats another reason I switched to PB. I was getting tired of how BB3D handled the issues.
But still... nVidia vs ATi... I would say I support AMD and ATi. I am running an Athlon 64 3200+ on my rig and have had no problems with anything other than Quicktime... and the problem with that was burning it off the Hard Drive so it would not come back!!!
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:52 am
by Bonne_den_kule
Tipperton wrote:The nVidia chips I've used (in order) are Riva 128, GeForce 256, GeForce FX5950 Ultra, GeForce 6800 Ultra, and my current GeForce 7800GS.
For my upgrade to a dual core 64 bit system I'm trying to decide between a GeForce 8800GTS or a GeForce 8800GT.
The 8800GT looks more powerful but it's standard clock speed is faster than the GTS' so it's kind of hard to tell if the better specs are simply becuase it runs faster.
The deciding factor will be whether I can find a graphics card that isn't over clocked. Besides not believing in over clocking there are lots of complaints about the over clocked cards running very hot and burning out in a couple months or less.
From the pictures of the cards, I suspect the problem is because the manufactures use the reference design's fan and heat sink which is really only design to disipate heat generated when running at stock speeds and can't handle the extra heat over clocking produces.
So far I've found a couple of GTS based cards configured to run at stock speeds but have not been able to find a single GT based card that isn't over clocked.
FWIW: Steam just did another hardware survey of it's members a month or so back and the results of the survey shows that about 63% of the survey responders use nVidia and about 32% use ATI.
There are 2 revisions/versions of 8800GTS. The old one based on G80 (slower than 8800GT) and a new version based on G92, which is even faster than 8800GTX.
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:55 pm
by Tipperton
Bonne_den_kule wrote:There are 2 revisions/versions of 8800GTS. The old one based on G80 (slower than 8800GT) and a new version based on G92, which is even faster than 8800GTX.
Ah, good information. I'll have to find out what the stock speed for the G92 version is, then see if I can find a non over clocked card that uses it.
Thanks!
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:36 pm
by Thalius
@Rook hehe .. yeah the thing with Non power of 2 textures ... gave me headaches on some stuff i made for a customer first .. til i noticed i had one texture non power 2 - which ripped my modelskin totally apart (eventually crashed ... lol as i used vertex skinning ...) .. ah sometimes i should look closer on teh irrlicht debug console ... lala =P
Thalius
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:11 pm
by Bonne_den_kule
Tipperton wrote:Bonne_den_kule wrote:There are 2 revisions/versions of 8800GTS. The old one based on G80 (slower than 8800GT) and a new version based on G92, which is even faster than 8800GTX.
Ah, good information. I'll have to find out what the stock speed for the G92 version is, then see if I can find a non over clocked card that uses it.
Thanks!
Clock speed is not everything. 8800GTS (G92) have 128 stream processors, while 8800GT has 112.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G92#Technical_Summary
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:00 pm
by superadnim
maw wrote:Currently I cannot recommend AMD/ATI for either GPU or CPU. Their hardware is simply inferior at the moment. And why buy inferior products? A couple of years ago I had an Athlon X2 4400+ because then AMD was superior to Intel's Prescott fiasco! I also had Radeon 9700, and later 9800, when they where far superior to anything nVidia managed to produce (anyone remember the leafblower FX5800?
).
Since buying up ATI AMD doesn't seem to be able to catch a break. Neither their CPU's nor their GPU's turn out the way, I assume, both they and their customers expected. And right now my major concern is that AMD might not survive actually, seeing as AMD is now worth less than they paid for ATI. That would leave nVidia and Intel without competition...
Need I say more than Creative...
Though I'll never forgive ATI for writing Catalyst Control Center in .NET...
While I agree with your point about ATI, I disagree with all the bull you said about AMD processors. You must live inside a box...
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:02 am
by pdwyer
Agree,
Our company over the last two years moved all their servers over to AMD dual cores too, they fly!. Since the the core duo came out from intel which lifts the bar which was long over due as Intel had been slacking for years.
Now, I don't know which I'd choose, I have an AMD dual core at home and am very happy with it.
On the other hand, I got burned years ago on an ATI card and don't touch them now. nvidia mother boards, gpu and amd cpu.
Over all, I'm happy that there's good competion. Intel has shown that without AMD they'd lose their edge. Because we have two chip makers progress continues (my opinion anyway). Intel seems to be climbing back on top again but 18 months ago (when I bought my PC) there was hardly a choice, people only bought intel only because they thought AMD was un proven or alternative, not because they thought it was faster for the money
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:27 am
by Tipperton
Bonne_den_kule wrote:Clock speed is not everything. 8800GTS (G92) have 128 stream processors, while 8800GT has 112.
I know that, my point is, that many manufacturers are over clocking their video boards and I do NOT want and will NOT buy an over clocked card.
So what I'll need to do is first find out what the stock speed for the G92 version of the 8800GTS is so I can avoid the over clocked cards.
pdwyer wrote:nvidia mother boards, gpu and amd cpu.
Same here, it's a "formula" that has always worked well for me, so why change?
If it works, don't fix it.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:50 am
by Tranquil
The decision depends on what you want to pay and what your main aim in using this card is.
It is true that nvidia leads the way for the current GPUs but these chips and cards are still the most expensive.
Last days I read a benchmark about the new nvidia gpu 8800 GTS 512 on computerbase.de (german site). They compared this chip against many others. It seems to be a good chips that can messes with the 8800 Ultra GPU easily and is only a half of its coast.
But when I see the performance/ price ranking chart, ATI is still the winner. The ATI Radeon HD 3850 atm brings the best power for your money.
And I'm sure you dont need more graphic power atm couse the real problem in gaming is not less GPU power, its less CPU power! So why now buying an expencive GPU which power you never can use couse your CPU limits it down?
As you can see in my signature, I 'm using an ATI1950XT which runs best on my QuadCore.
so far..
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:41 am
by Foz
The thing is, what are you going to use that takes advantage of such high end processing power? Games? But all the physics and graphics is done on the GPU!
I will be building up a new computer this coming year, and I would rather redirect a lot of that money to a high end SLI job that actually makes a significant difference rather than a quad core intel that makes little visible difference.
I mean really, can you tell the difference between a game running at 100FPS and 120FPS? Personally, I struggle to see a difference after 60 FPS.
I'll be getting nvidia m/b & gpu and an AMD Quad Core...
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:45 am
by thefool
Ehm. depends evidently on what you need.
I know for games, yes. But for music producing you need the 4 cores. And for games? YES. WHEN the manifacturers begin to make them support multible cores you could get much speed of it. Let 1 core do the physics calculations etc around that.
Quadcore is godlike. You can do whatever you want, and as many times as you want, while you do 10 other things. I FEEL FREE
doesn't matter if its going to be amd or intel. Its the 4x that counts anyway.
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:53 am
by Foz
Yeah, 4 cores rock. One for the OS, and three for the other three programs you are running: PureBasic IDE, PureBasic Visual Designer and your PureProgram
But really, does a quad core made so much of a difference to music production?
Plus like I said, I'll be getting a quad core amd, £120 is a nice price for quad core...
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:56 am
by thefool
YES quadcores make a huge difference.
The CPU has been the limit long time if you want fast responce from your audio interface and the effects/instruments. They are power hungry.
The modern DAW's can spread the load over all of your cores, hence you can run many more instances of the things you want to. For example i have a 3.3 ms buffer, and i get NO glitches even on huge tracks.
We also had a little testing going on at the Ableton Live forums. The quadcore 2.4ghz kicked the hell out of the 3.2 ghz dualcores, obviously. So yes, quadcore makes a hell of a difference
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:34 am
by blueznl
Not sure if QC is the way to go. I must say that DualCore seems to be the most sensible thing at the moment. Maybe the trinity (three core) design that Amd was talking about some time ago makes most sense?
I must say that for development and day to day use a QC is nice, but most people, and certainly almost all gamers, might stick to a DC for the moment.
That said, I do have a QC myself at the moment
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:34 am
by Berikco
I tested a dual quad core xeon last week
8 cores
Not only does this look nice in taskmanager.
It realy is the only way to go for future OS and software.